Could There Already Be There An Indictment Under Seal for Trump?

WOW! Obama achieved the overthrow of an entire nation with nothing more than the NATO enforcement of a no fly zone and the use of ONLY five bombers on NATO sanctioned missions. No boots on the ground at all and no US service personal even suffered as much as a scratch! Obama must be the MOST successful "war president" of all time if he could achieve that feat without any casualties whatsoever. FTR there is NOTHING ILLEGAL about participating in NATO sanctioned missions since the US has a RATIFIED TREATY with NATO.

The SCOTUS actually REINFORCED the right of the POTUS to make recess appointments in their ruling. What actually happened was PURE POLITICAL THEATER because Republicans have been illegally trying to get rid of the NRLB and failing to confirm appointments. What Obama did was EXPOSE the nefarious agenda of the GOP against We the People.

What imaginary "law" are you referring to because it does not appear anywhere in of the media reporting that I have seen. The prisoner swaps were all part of the deal with Iran to end their nuke program. How many of those prisoner swaps occurred during the Cold War? Why was it "illegal" for Obama to engage in a common negotiating practice between nations that has actually been happening for centuries past?

As I have mentioned several times now I see a lot of viable candidates out there and I have no idea which one will prevail. My preference is for a Progressive because that I what I see is the BEST option for We the People in our current less than optimal circumstances.

 

So you have secret inside information as to what actually transpired in that court room?

 

Hi, Te! And a 'happy holiday' to you!

That 'NATO treaty' ploy didn't absolve Obama from mandatory compliance with the War Powers Act. The Libyan civil war was rolling along, back and forth, and then here came the United States in with overpowering air power in 2011. The government was overthrown shortly afterward, and the country has been in total chaos ever since. We haven't even been able to keep an American embassy open in Tripoli since July 2014 because of the insane Islamo-Nazi cabal that has prevailed in Libya since Obama pulled that stunt. Thanks, Obama.

Any way you 'slice it or dice it', the Supreme Court unanimously found that Obama's recess appointments were unconstitutional, Te. Not even Obama's own stooge 'Justices' were willing to back him on this. Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theemp...tutional-100-decisions-impacted/#53f151dc734b

What should happen to a president who commits an act that is unconstitutional...? If someone like Trump, for instance, did the same thing, would you be screaming for his head...?

Lastly, the Obama administration broke the law when it exchanged five Taliban commanders for a captured U.S. soldier without giving Congress 30 days notice, according to a review by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ergdahl/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b4f7a2e850f3 . You had trouble finding this? Here's another one: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Polit...-law-in-Bergdahl-release-deal-GAO-report-says .

Anyway, we can possibly agree that the next two years are going to be pretty much just 'gut-bucket' HORRIBLE in the United States. Even if the Democrats don't impeach Trump, it's just going to be one big 'axe-fight' after another, about everything, going on right into the next election. It's beyond sad, Te... you guys on the Left don't have a 'John F. Kennedy' to offer the country, and we on the Right don't have a 'Ronald Reagan', either. And nobody's happier than our opponents -- you may believe THAT if nothing else....

 

We don't know what happened, only that it happened.

 

All the GOP could offer is the awful Trump, and enough Americans fell for it.

 

Merry Christmas, Cy. Hope that you and your nearest and dearest have a wonderful time.

Your whines about Obama are a very thin watery gruel that only the most obsessed would consider worthy of bringing up in comparison to the BLOTUS. When did Obama reveal top secret information about one of staunchest allies to our enemies? When did Obama personally enrich himself at taxpayer expense every week of his administration? When did Obama violate the law with nepotism appointments? When did Obama obstruct justice? When did he conspire to violate campaign finance laws?

Yes, the next two years are going to be marginally better than the previous two because the BLOTUS is now hamstrung by a Congress that won't roll over and play dead while he screws over the nation and We the People. While it might be worse from your perspective I see that as an improvement. A very slight improvement but still better than the alternative.

What attributes did FDR, JFK, St Reagan, Clinton and Obama all have in common?

 

My 'whines' about Obama may have been largely ignored by a cowardly, RINO-contaminated Congress and the liberal media, but I notice that you did not try to refute them. What I said was true, and we both know it, but... screw it. Water under the bridge. It will probably be at least another fifty years before Obama is examined thoroughly and objectively... probably by Chinese, Russian, or German scholars, or whoever it is that presides over our eventual downfall.

I'll repeat, if only to hear myself say it, that if there are credible charges that can be brought against Donald Trump, then, YES, I want them brought forth and acted upon! If Donald Trump has broken the law he needs to face the appropriate consequences -- whatever those may be.

In your last sentence, I suppose that you are referring to the fact that all of these people were at one time or another, Democrats....
When you google, "Ronald Reagan was a Democrat at one time", the first thing you see is:

"(Ronald) Reagan had been a Democrat until 1962, when he became a conservative and switched to the Republican Party. In 1964, Reagan's speech, 'A Time for Choosing', supported Barry Goldwater's foundering presidential campaign and earned him national attention as a new conservative spokesman." This is not shocking to me, Te... in my long-ago, teenage youth, I counted myself as being among the liberals of that day's Democrats, until about 1971 (although I absolutely HATED Lyndon Johnson because of the Vietnam War, but who was FDR's über-liberal 'star pupil').

Today, the Republican Party is no longer Conservative, and the Democrat Party has morphed into a grotesque sort of 'socialism-lite', America-hating monstrosity. After the bloody, vicious political 'axe-fight' I predict for this country during the next two years, who would make a good, effective president, Te? Neither of us knows... but both of us will have to live through what comes now, and afterward. Thank God I'm old now... if I were a twenty-something today, I'd make it a point to become proficient in either Russian or Mandarin....

All the best!

 

FDR, JFK, St Reagan, Clinton and Obama all shared the following leadership attributes to a greater or lesser degree. I bring these up because they are notably ABSENT from Nixon, LBJ, both Bushes and the BLOTUS.

Vision, charisma, eloquence and the ability to motivate others to accomplish their vision.

FDR spoke about "fear itself" and motivated America to build infrastructure as a way out of the Great Depression. JFK had the vision of a "man on the moon" and motivated America to make that happen. St Reagan had his vision of "morning in America" and motivated Americans to get back to work after the inflationary 70's era. Clinton had his visions of a thousand more teachers and police officers. Obama offered "hope" and motivated the creation of beginnings of what will eventually become universal healthcare.

Whether or not you agree with any of the above those are all leadership attributes and all of them had them and used them to one degree or another.

Note that I am NOT being partisan either. These qualities can and do exist on either side of the aisle. I would have no problem supporting a GOP candidate with these attributes in 2020.

So when you berate me about what the Dems have to offer I just ignore it as you venting your frustrations, Cy. There are very few statesmen like Churchill, Mandela, Lincoln, Ghandi, et al. Instead we have to seek out the visionary leaders that are a little lower on the ladder from the rest of the political dross that has egos greater than their abilities.

Yes, they do exist and I have seen some of these attributes amongst the Progressives which is fortunate because we are going to need all of them if our nation is going to survive and prosper.

There is no question that our nation is in decline and for that I place the blame where it belongs on the Wall Street Casino and their bought and paid for subsidiaries known as the GOP and the DP.

Breaking that death grip on power before we end up as yet another 3rd world nation is not going to be easy and it will be the Millennials that will make it happen. If they fail we are all screwed.

 

Derideo_Te continues to sweep Trumper opposition before his arguments.

 

When you impanel a grand Jury for an indictment they don't bring the defendants legal team in for rebuttal. The court room meeting being discussed had both legal teams in for argument hence it wasn't for indictments. Is there something about this that is over your head?

 

We know the meeting wasn't for an indictment as every Liberal on this thread is hoping for. If it was for an indictment the opposing legal team wouldn't be brought in for rebuttal.

 

Puerile projection of your own shortcomings duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

The Mueller team might already have a GJ indictment and wanted to make formal charges in court so your beloved BLOTUS's legal team was there to challenge both the indictment and the charges.

That challenge may or may not have been successful but until it is unsealed we won't know. However ASSUMING that it was NOT about an indictment is based upon nothing but wishful thinking.

Given your beloved BLOTUS's flouting of the law of the land there is at least a 50-50 chance that this was about an indictment.

 

I think the possibility of this secret indictment is quite likely.

 

It's quite possible that a GJ indictment for the President does exist.

No one can demonstrate the meeting was not about an indictment.

 

It is not possible. It is prohibited by the US constitution. No prosecutor may lawfully indict the POTUS. This is fake news being spread by alt left conspiracy theorists.

 

The "meeting" was in regards to a gov't owned foreign corp being subpoenaed by Mueller, and that gov't appealing it under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). It stands to be a landmark for SCOTUS as it appears it may be argued in camera to never published unredacted.
It had nothing to do with leftist wet dreams..

 

PI, no, the Constitution does not prohibit. I know that startles you. There is no law that prohibits the indictment of POTUS. Anyone who is telling you differently, PI, is not telling you the truth.

 

Can you prove that? No?

 

You're on the internet. Don't embarrass yourself. Learn how to use it.

The story has been broadly reported even by the far left cnn.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/23/poli...urt-pause-mystery-company-subpoena/index.html

 

As I stated before, You obviously have no clue how our judicial system works. An Indictment is a formal charge. Maybe you should just stick to your same ole hateful name calling post. Seems its all you have to offer to a conversation.

 

I've got a great idea that should make Democrats happy! Let's stop talking to the Russians altogether! Let's impose a complete vacuum of silence on them and never have any conversations with them at all about anything -- ever. Let's tear out the 'red telephones' from the White House, the Pentagon, and everywhere else we have 'direct lines' to Russia. Shut them out... seal them out... never have anything to do with them... let everything that happens going forward just be a "big surprise".... Let's see how well THAT works....

The flaw...? Then the Democrats will simply find something ELSE to bitch about.... It's always something when a Republican sits in the Oval Office.

 

And your point is what?

 

Yes ... Article II prohibits it. Only congress may hold the POTUS accountable for misconduct. There is no other reason that the provisions for impeachment should exist JS. Any person of even marginal intelligence understands this.

 

Maybe if you spent a little more time educating yourself instead of your BLOTUS TDSing you might not get embarrassed as much.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/23/poli...urt-pause-mystery-company-subpoena/index.html

Oh, and by the way, you can't indict a sitting president. But please continue as your obvious lack of knowledge and snowflake meltdowns are most entertaining.

 

Uh, You obviously have no clue about indicting a sitting president. Maybe you should do a little more research before posting.